Thatâs a huge question thatâs circulating now that the game has immediately popped to the top of the App Store and has cemented itself as one of the most successful game launches of all time. The mechanics of the game are fundamentally sound, and it has an extensive library of nostalgic content and a unique real-world experience that spans multiple demographics that should for the time being continue actively bringing in new players. But can it keep that up?

This feels a bit like a too-soon question. We havenât seen where the gameâs development and iteration is going to go. That being said, Dan has a lot of greatÂ points in hisÂ post. I have a few Iâd likeÂ to add here for the general argument on the internet happening:

I think the Minecraft analogue between user-generated gameplay (UGP) and user-generated content (UGC)Â here is the difference between jumping into a session and building versus encountering something new thatâs already built or with an existing structured community. Minecraft does a really good job ofÂ bothÂ of these, which is what Iâd argue is its biggest contributor to its staying power.

Good UGC is a precursor to good UGP. In order to create a fun, unique playing session, the creator of the game has to have good tools for producing UGC that leads to good UGP, or create the content themselves that can facilitateÂ a good UGP experience.Â Each playing session is a unique experience, giving players a reason to come back over and over again â even if itâs for the same level.

Candy Crush Saga, meanwhile, doesnât have UGC. Its core, reliable mechanic is fresh UGP, which is something that can carry a game for a very long time as long as thereâs good content. But in the case of Candy Crush Saga, that can also turn into a race against time to create enough content that keeps players engaged. Iâd argue what Candy Crush Saga (and also Kim Kardashian: Hollywood, which weâll get to later) excelled at was building a strong casual user base that progressed through the game at a more leisurely pace.

So we can see here that it actually took a while for Minecraft to really ramp up, despite having some brand equity built up. But what weÂ can see from this sustained top grossing status is that itâs constantly attracting new players (because itâs a paid app) despite the lack of an internal social graph. The only incentive to getting a new player into the game is really to add someone new to play with, and you really have to hunt someone down to accomplish that. What Minecraft does really well is have the baked-in tools to inspire really strong UGPÂ and UGC. Itâs an augmented Lego experience, after all.

So letâs look at a different, maybe more unique case. Kim Kardashian: Hollywood also represented a huge, untapped cultural zeitgeistÂ that had yet to make its way into a mobile game. Then it came out with aÂ bang and blew away most (all?) other games in the App Store. The charts:

Top Free Rankings

Top Grossing (wow!)

So this is another case thatâsÂ a little perpendicular to Minecraft. Kim Kardashian: Hollywood had a very strong set of tools for UGP. But what the game was really about was a lot of strong content that kept players compelled. The tricky part about that is producing enough content becomes a race against time to keep players engaged and not deleting the app.Â This led to a really powerful start, but it couldnât sustain the momentum and eventually tapered off. Weâre probably going to see something when a game about Taylor Swift or Kanye West comes out.

A quick, but similar case before moving forward â letâs take a look at Candy Crush: Soda Saga, because it is probably the closest comparable given that itâs piggybacking off existing brand equity.

Top Free Downloads (this looks familiarâ¦)

Top Grossing (also familiar!)

The lesson from Kim Kardashian: Hollywood and Candy Crush: Soda Saga isÂ really that brand equity can only carry you forÂ so long, but holy **** does it give you a head start. Thatâs important for attracting a core âwhaleâ user base thatâs going to sustain the life of your game. And, lining up with Danâs point as well, just glancing at the top grossing charts means you donât have to sustain a constant flow of new players in order to be a successful game from a revenue standpoint. These games are clearly monetizing well forÂ years.

Before closing, Iâd like to address the Words with Friends or Chess with Friends comparisons. While these also have strong elements of UGP and UGC, Iâd argue that the playground for these games simply didnât have the strong infrastructureÂ to triggerÂ thatÂ moment of inspiration in really casual players that progresses them toward the finish line. These kinds of games might beÂ really fun for creative or well-trained individuals, but the early curve was a littleÂ sharp in order to make the game really funÂ to a huge audience without the patience to achieve that mastery without any guidance. If a player isnât progressing â especially for games that arenât obviously showing how the player is growing in skill or practice â then it might lead to some burnout outside the most devoted players.

Having an explicit, smooth mastery and progression curve â and initial ramp â is critical to a long-lasting game, and in cases like Chess or ScrabbleÂ players may be paralyzed by the options and not know which move to make. They might also not know what the rate of their progression is, or how to gauge the âlevelâ of their opponent. Match-3 is great for this because itâs more of a compulsive mechanic that feels very natural and tuning level difficulty is a little more straightforward. To be truly great at Chess or Scrabble, you pretty much have to study (online or other players) or have a dictionary out with you (which is totally cheating).